Most beautiful Linux.

[unr]

Linux kernel is being developed to be stable and compatible with all sorts of hardware. You could argue that this is becouse it is targeted solely for servers, but stability is an issue for desktop users too.
I don`t really see what kernel even has to do with user friendliness. Stock kernels tend to perform very well on most machines. In fact I am using archlinux`s default i686-optimized kernel (constantly updated of course) for almost two years already and I didn`t have any issues at all. Sure, I could disable all the unneccessary stuff and get 200% of what Windows could give me with this hardware, but I am happy with 170% I already get. I do not think reapplying patches and manually recompiling kernel image after every update is worth my time. I let package manager take care of keeping me up to date.

Linux/BSD is de facto standard for most servers. Most mission-critical machines run on some kind of UNIX-family OS.
This is what Linux was focused on right from the beginning and continues to do so til today.
However, "server-optimized" does not imply "desktop-unusable". With correct packaging Linux can appeal to anybody, from kindergardeners to older folk.
Linux always supported freedom of choice. If you don`t like something in a system - either get a replacement that does the same thing in a way you like or get rid of it at all.

Linux IS ready for home use. More and more people salute Linux after making "the switch". Haters are usually people that have no knowledge of what this "Leenuks" thing is or have tried it for around 20 secs before wiping it out of hard drive using Mr. Proper Â. Learning takes time, don`t expect knowledge to be implanted into your brain on the first boot, matrix-style.

However, to contradict myself, Linux IS NOT for everybody.
If you:
* Have no will to learn how to use this OS
* Are happy enough with Windows
...by all means, stay with Win. There`s no need to increase "Linsux" crowd any more.

 

[Azimuth]

about other distros, but the only time I -ever- had to open the terminal in PCLinuxOS was when I tried to install cTorrent

Well wasn't that my point, you had to open up the terminal to do an install. In windows everything can be handled via GUI. Try configuring a video card or any other hardware in Linux and I guarantee you'll have to pop open a terminal.

edit: rtorrent > ctorrent

QUOTEI HIGHLY recommend PCLinuxOS for people of all skill level.

I don't mean to sound elitist but desktop distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu are loaded with stuff that most people don't use, most skilled users can't stand bloat and usually use a more bare-bones distro(like slacks). They also use SysV-init scripts which are gross.

BeOS/Haiku are the fastest OSes I have ever used but a single user mode scares me. Linux already has excellent driver support and documentation which would have to be ported over to another platform, all that work won't pay off in the end.

I hope that this will be my last post in this thread.

 

[Mewgia]

about other distros, but the only time I -ever- had to open the terminal in PCLinuxOS was when I tried to install cTorrent

Well wasn't that my point, you had to open up the terminal to do an install. In windows everything can be handled via GUI. Try configuring a video card or any other hardware in Linux and I guarantee you'll have to pop open a terminal.

edit: rtorrent > ctorrent

I HIGHLY recommend PCLinuxOS for people of all skill level.

I don't mean to sound elitist but desktop distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu are loaded with stuff that most people don't use, most skilled users can't stand bloat and usually use a more bare-bones distro(like slacks). They also use SysV-init scripts which are gross.

BeOS/Haiku are the fastest OSes I have ever used but a single user mode scares me. Linux already has excellent driver support and documentation which would have to be ported over to another platform, all that work won't pay off in the end.

I hope that this will be my last post in this thread.

true true, I haven't really tried to install much other stuff and Windows does do everything via GUI.

And I get your point about it being loaded with a lot of stuff that people don't use.

I'll have to try out those two distros sometime on my laptop.

 

[mikeosoft]

lemme just throw in my two cents:

truth be told; people want customization Until they realize ultimate customization at their fingertips comes at a price: Customization takes time and learning. Linux offers total customization. People want to feel total customization within a set bounds. For example, people like to move where the startup bar is on xp and vista all the time. Now they get overwelmed when they realize in linux that not only can they move the bar around to the left side or right, they can change the appearance, the location of the start and so forth. And this scares people and turns newbies off because with total customization comes a need to learn and get good at a certian niche. most users don't have the time to spend learning new ways to handle and control linux.

Now this is the paradox every GUI designer faces in the future, whether it's a graphical application or an actual UI device like a wiimote. People are frightened of new things. A slight change in Vista appearance from XP causes mass histeria and anger from alot of the working world.




I love linux, i enjoy ubuntu and fedora. I've showed my roomates and got them live discs, but it takes an enthusiast to really learn how they want to use linux.

 

[CrEsPo]

about other distros, but the only time I -ever- had to open the terminal in PCLinuxOS was when I tried to install cTorrent

Well wasn't that my point, you had to open up the terminal to do an install. In windows everything can be handled via GUI. Try configuring a video card or any other hardware in Linux and I guarantee you'll have to pop open a terminal.

edit: rtorrent > ctorrent

I beg to differ. Although I'm a fan of using CLI, I know there is a ton of utilities out there that will let you do configuration via GUI. If you use Ubuntu you can install files via a double-click like you do in Windows. I also remember seeing a package manager (I think it's Autopackage) that acts exactly like Windows installers.

 

[Deleted User]

Can anyone recommend me the most beautiful version of Linux? I would be nice if I can dual boot with Windows XP. Thanks in advance.

Ku-Ubuntu (Ubuntu with GNOME and KDE [uses GDM])

 

[joe_user]

I don't mean to sound elitist but desktop distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu are loaded with stuff that most people don't use, most skilled users can't stand bloat and usually use a more bare-bones distro(like slacks). They also use SysV-init scripts which are gross.

BeOS/Haiku are the fastest OSes I have ever used but a single user mode scares me. Linux already has excellent driver support and documentation which would have to be ported over to another platform, all that work won't pay off in the end.

I hope that this will be my last post in this thread.

Using Linux for over 10 years, beeing a senior developer myself, so I claim to have some computer skills. You know what? I switched to Ubuntu two years ago. Why? Because I just want an OS that works. Had Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, aso before. It was a great learning experience. But with time, you just want something that works. Ubuntu is a great example for that. There are for sure others. Play around with it. If you like it, stick with it. If not, try something different. With Linux, you have the CHOICE.

 

[pikachucrackpipe]

Can anyone recommend me the most beautiful version of Linux? I would be nice if I can dual boot with Windows XP. Thanks in advance.

imo fedora looks the best but ubuntu apparently is the peoples choice
you can change it up anyway you want though